scholarly journals Prognostic factors for long-term sickness absence among employees with neck–shoulder and low-back pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Holtermann ◽  
Jørgen V Hansen ◽  
Hermann Burr ◽  
Karen Søgaard
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Sickness Absence ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Prognostic factors related to recurrent low-back pain and sickness absence

2004 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 459-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swenne G van den Heuvel ◽  
Geertje AM Ariëns ◽  
Hendriek C Boshuizen ◽  
Wilhelmina E Hoogendoorn ◽  
Paulien M Bongers
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Sickness Absence ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Recurrent Low Back Pain

scholarly journals Returning to work after long term sickness absence due to low back pain – the struggle within: A qualitative study of the patient's experience

Work ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cormac G. Ryan ◽  
Douglas Lauchlan ◽  
Leigh Rooney ◽  
Caroline Hollins Martins ◽  
Heather Gray
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Sickness Absence ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Patient’S Experience ◽  
Returning To Work

scholarly journals Risk factors for sickness absence due to low back pain and prognostic factors for return to work in a cohort of shipyard workers

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (9) ◽  
pp. 1185-1192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evangelos C. Alexopoulos ◽  
Eleni C. Konstantinou ◽  
Giorgos Bakoyannis ◽  
Dimitra Tanagra ◽  
Alex Burdorf
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Sickness Absence ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Shipyard Workers

scholarly journals Long-term improvements following a residential combined physical and psychological programme for chronic low back pain

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e001068
Author(s):  
Shaun Wellburn ◽  
Cormac G Ryan ◽  
Andrew Coxon ◽  
Alastair J Dickson ◽  
D John Dickson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Residential Setting ◽  
Wide Range

ObjectivesEvaluate the outcomes and explore experiences of patients undergoing a residential combined physical and psychological programme (CPPP) for chronic low back pain.DesignA longitudinal observational cohort design, with a parallel qualitative design using semistructured interviews.SettingResidential, multimodal rehabilitation.Participants136 adults (62 male/74 female) referred to the CPPP, 100 (44 male/56 female) of whom completed the programme, during the term of the study. Ten (2 male/8 female) participated in the qualitative evaluation.InterventionA 3-week residential CPPP.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures were the STarT Back screening tool score; pain intensity—11-point Numerical Rating Scale; function—Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); health status/quality of life—EQ-5D-5L EuroQol five-Dimension-five level; anxiety—Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; depression—Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Secondary outcome measures were the Global Subjective Outcome Scale; National Health Service Friends and Family Test;.ResultsAt discharge, 6 and 12 months follow ups, there were improvements from baseline that were greater than minimum clinically important differences in each of the outcomes (with the sole exception of ODI at discharge). At 12 months, the majority of people considered themselves a lot better (57%) and were extremely likely (86%) to recommend the programme to a friend. The qualitative data showed praise for the residential nature of the intervention and the opportunities for interaction with peers and peer support. There were testimonies of improvements in understanding of pain and how to manage it better. Some participants said they had reduced, or stopped, medication they had been taking to manage their pain.ConclusionsParticipants improved, and maintained long term, beyond minimum clinically important differences on a wide range of outcomes. Participants reported an enhanced ability to self-manage their back pain and support for the residential setting.

scholarly journals The Dutch Multidisciplinary Occupational Health Guideline to Enhance Work Participation Among Low Back Pain and Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome Patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. W. H. Luites ◽  
P. P. F. M. Kuijer ◽  
C. T. J. Hulshof ◽  
R. Kok ◽  
M. W. Langendam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Work Participation ◽  
Stepped Care ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbosacral Radicular Syndrome ◽  
Care Approach ◽  
Radicular Syndrome

AbstractPurpose Based on current scientific evidence and best practice, the first Dutch multidisciplinary practice guideline for occupational health professionals was developed to stimulate prevention and enhance work participation in patients with low back pain (LBP) and lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS). Methods A multidisciplinary working group with health care professionals, a patient representative and researchers developed the recommendations after systematic review of evidence about (1) Risk factors, (2) Prevention, (3) Prognostic factors and (4) Interventions. Certainty of the evidence was rated with GRADE and the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework was used to formulate recommendations. High or moderate certainty resulted in a recommendation “to advise”, low to very low in a recommendation “to consider”, unless other factors in the framework decided differently. Results An inventory of risk factors should be considered and an assessment of prognostic factors is advised. For prevention, physical exercises and education are advised, besides application of the evidence-based practical guidelines “lifting” and “whole body vibration”. The stepped-care approach to enhance work participation starts with the advice to stay active, facilitated by informing the worker, reducing workload, an action plan and a time-contingent increase of work participation for a defined amount of hours and tasks. If work participation has not improved within 6 weeks, additional treatments should be considered based on the present risk and prognostic factors: (1) physiotherapy or exercise therapy; (2) an intensive workplace-oriented program; or (3) cognitive behavioural therapy. After 12 weeks, multi-disciplinary (occupational) rehabilitation therapy need to be considered. Conclusions Based on systematic reviews and expert consensus, the good practice recommendations in this guideline focus on enhancing work participation among workers with LBP and LRS using a stepped-care approach to complement existing guidelines focusing on recovery and daily functioning.

scholarly journals Prognosis and Course of Disability in Patients With Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A 5- and 12-Month Follow-up Cohort Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (12) ◽  
pp. 1603-1614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Verkerk ◽  
Pim A.J. Luijsterburg ◽  
Martijn W. Heymans ◽  
Inge Ronchetti ◽  
Annelies L. Pool-Goudzwaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Multidisciplinary Therapy ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Specific Disability

Background Few data are available on the course of and predictors for disability in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). Objective The purpose of this study was to describe the course of disability and identify clinically important prognostic factors of low-back-pain–specific disability in patients with CNSLBP receiving multidisciplinary therapy. Design A prospective cohort study was conducted. Methods A total of 1,760 patients with CNSLBP who received multidisciplinary therapy were evaluated for their course of disability and prognostic factors at baseline and at 2-, 5-, and 12-month follow-ups. Recovery was defined as 30% reduction in low back pain–specific disability at follow-up compared with baseline and as absolute recovery if the score on the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) was ≤20 points at follow-up. Potential prognostic factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results Mean patient-reported disability scores on the QBPDS ranged from 51.7 (SD=15.6) at baseline to 31.7 (SD=15.2), 31.1 (SD=18.2), and 29.1 (SD=20.0) at 2, 5, and 12 months, respectively. The prognostic factors identified for recovery at 5 and 12 months were younger age and high scores on disability and on the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) (Physical and Mental Component Summaries) at baseline. In addition, at 5-month follow-up, a shorter duration of complaints was a positive predictor, and having no comorbidity and less pain at baseline were additional predictors at 12-month follow-up. Limitations Missing values at 5- and 12-month follow-ups were 11.1% and 45.2%, respectively. Conclusion After multidisciplinary treatment, the course of disability in patients with CNSLBP continued to decline over a 12-month period. At 5- and 12-month follow-ups, prognostic factors were identified for a clinically relevant decrease in disability scores on the QBPDS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document